What do you expect from D&D?

[eggynack]

And no, I don't believe the book burning story either.

I can half buy it, though I tend to be a pretty gullible person. Incidentally, this is one of the things I expect from D&D, that the DM won't set books aflame. I'd probably leave after that one, cause it's a thing that freaks me the hell out.

Edit: Incidentally, watched The Last Crusade for the first time in years lately, and if there's one thing I learned from that movie, it's that if you want to get people pissed off at a villain, you're way better off having them burn books than having them burn people. Costs way less narrative juice than person murder (What, am I not going to get invested in the existence of future books because books get burned so often in the story?), and might actually make the villain seem more despicable.

[Phelix-Mu]

I am learning to expect ToB controversy.

[Seppo87]

Of course, that's an ideal scenario.

That's the bare minimum. An ideal scenario involves a good story and players with at least some degree of imagination

[cobaltstarfire]

1. I expect to know what kind of game I'm playing (I don't much enjoy GM VS PC, PVP, and Combat heavy games)
2. I expect to know any houserules that would have a direct impact on my characters ability to use their class abilities
3. I expect some background on the world I'm playing in, that way I can fluff and RP my character in a way that fits properly (my character should know what they can and can't do, how the world works, ect)
4. I expect to know what kind of optimization is expected. A high op game probably wouldn't be a very good fit for a player like me. I like to make effective characters but if the table was high OP the likelyhood of that happening without outside help is next to nill
5. And of course, I expect the players and gm to be reasonable people who are friendly and fun to be around.


Bonus: I hope for tolerance of the fact that I have a math disability, and a lot of difficulty with remembering rules, particularly for combat (especially since until recently it'd been well over 10 years since I'd really played)

(I actually expect that I'll be run off by a bunch of very rude males, I've never had a favorable encounter in real life with strangers when it comes to P&P games, fingers crossed that trying to join the adventure league next week will break that history and be fun)

[Svata]

I hope it isn't true. IMHO, the destuction of information, in this case burning books is the most despicable thing one can do outside of causing severe harm to an animal (including humans in the definition, excluding members of the arthopod phylum, especially the insect class).

[Zanos]

That's the bare minimum. An ideal scenario involves a good story and players with at least some degree of imagination

I've played in campaigns with less than that. One bad player or a DM with an eccentric style isn't enough to get me to leave the table unless they're egregious offenders. Some of these things are linked though. Unwanted PvP is almost always caused by bad players.

[atemu1234]

I hope it isn't true. IMHO, the destuction of information, in this case burning books is the most despicable thing one can do outside of causing severe harm to an animal (including humans in the definition, excluding members of the arthopod phylum, especially the insect class).

Agreed.

Warning: Godwin's Law Incoming=What do Hitler and Stalin have in common? They both burned books and suppressed information that didn't fit into their narrow and profoundly stupid world view.

Edit: I'm not comparing Jedipotter to hitler or stalin. Just explaining why I hate burning books.

[Brookshw]

and is a better representation of real world martial arts than standard D&D combat. .

okay, yeah, gonna have to stop you there. A) no, b) still no. Both suck horribly at modeling real world martial arts.

[geekintheground]

okay, yeah, gonna have to stop you there. A) no, b) still no. Both suck horribly at modeling real world martial arts.

notice the wording, its "BETTER". even "bad" can be better than something...

[bjoern]

Agreed.

Warning: Godwin's Law Incoming=What do Hitler and Stalin have in common? They both burned books and suppressed information that didn't fit into their narrow and profoundly stupid world view.

Edit: I'm not comparing Jedipotter to hitler or stalin. Just explaining why I hate burning books.

Yikes this thread has taken a turn since I was here last. I'll have to read page 2 and see how we got here.

[atemu1234]

Yikes this thread has taken a turn since I was here last. I'll have to read page 2 and see how we got here.

One word: Jedipotter.

One acronym: ToB

[Brookshw]

notice the wording, "its BETTER at modeling real world martial arts". even "bad" can be better than something...

Why, yes in fact, I did somehow manage to struggle through those words. BOTH. FAIL. HARD. The only potential value for "better" here is you have a variety of schools that can suck at it instead of no schools. That's not "better" modeling for real world martial arts. The real world doesn't mesh well with d&d.

[Zanos]

Combat in D&D shouldn't simulate real combat other than giving it a passing nod anyway.

[eggynack]

okay, yeah, gonna have to stop you there. A) no, b) still no. Both suck horribly at modeling real world martial arts.

Why is that the case?

[Jeff the Green]

Why, yes in fact, I did somehow manage to struggle through those words. BOTH. FAIL. HARD. The only potential value for "better" here is you have a variety of schools that can suck at it instead of no schools. That's not "better" modeling for real world martial arts. The real world doesn't mesh well with d&d.

It models it better in three important respects:

• Getting hit often reduces your ability to fight back even if it doesn't knock you unconscious.
• You can actively choose to do something to mitigate particular attacks.
• It's more likely to kill you with a sword than with boredom.

[Phelix-Mu]

Yikes this thread has taken a turn since I was here last. I'll have to read page 2 and see how we got here.

I was trying, perhaps poorly, to set the ship aright, but it seems to have foundered good and proper this time.

For the record, while burning books may or may not be in good taste, I think that this information/digital age makes many of the most heinous issues with book burning much less reprehensible. Total loss of knowledge is very hard in this internet age, and the actual value or significance inherent in any random book is much less (such that some books literally aren't worth the paper they are printed on...a far cry from ages past).

That said, it's still a bad echo from bad times, and sends messages of badness to that bad place in everyone where the darkness lies.

But...as a copy editor, I have burnt ToB as well, if only within the confines of mine own mind (and under the conflagration of mine enraged gaze). Its organization is almost as heinous as book burning. (/hyperbole)

[WhamBamSam]

okay, yeah, gonna have to stop you there. A) no, b) still no. Both suck horribly at modeling real world martial arts.

It's not perfect by any stretch, but at least the basics of "maybe I should try this technique against this type of enemy/strategy" and yes, the general structure of "do the thing then have to 'reset' in some way before you can do the thing again" feel right to me. Also, the things Jeff the Green said. And not to be that guy, but as I said earlier in this thread, I can speak with some authority about that sort of thing. I've been training in Taekwondo for more than 3/4 of my life (17 years this month), earned the rank of Master, and been a pretty successful competitor up to high level collegiate tournaments. I'm not the greatest natural athlete, but I could probably pull off reasonable approximations of (Ex) maneuvers up to 2nd or 3rd level, and I know people or know of people who can, (and do, in competition), analogues of 3rd level and higher maneuvers, which seems about right for the E6 world in which we live.

[Phelix-Mu]

It's not perfect by any stretch, but at least the basics of "maybe I should try this technique against this type of enemy/strategy" and yes, the general structure of "do the thing then have to 'reset' in some way before you can do the thing again" feel right to me. Also, the things Jeff the Green said. And not to be that guy, but as I said earlier in this thread, I can speak with some authority about that sort of thing. I've been training in Taekwondo for more than 3/4 of my life (17 years this month), earned the rank of Master, and been a pretty successful competitor up to high level collegiate tournaments.

Since we are really doing this, I find that, in a sense, this is what is wrong with ToB. Too many choices. I have some friends that are good players and all, but they aren't that big into complex mechanics. ToB, while it isn't spellcasting-grade complexity (looking at you, prepared casters), is still a good mark above "I swing my sword" or "I charge" or "I run away." Simplicity as a thing is highly undervalued in D&D, and unfortunately goes side-by-side with inefficacy at higher op-levels. But it isn't evil; some people like mechanics-lite, role play-heavy, and that is fine.

After all, it takes all kinds.

Personally, ToB has it's place, but some people don't want it, and that is fine, too. I used to be allergic to it as well, but my op-addiction got the better of me, and now I list it among the many tools at my disposal.

[eggynack]

The way I figure it, there are a lot of potentially valid reasons for the things Jedipotter likes to do. There are reasons to change the material components system, and there are reasons to impose secret house rules, and there are reasons to not allow ToB. The issue is, those reasons are just ridiculously divorced from Jedipotter's stated reasons for doing these things. Makes these discussions weird.

[Jeff the Green]

Since we are really doing this, I find that, in a sense, this is what is wrong with ToB. Too many choices. I have some friends that are good players and all, but they aren't that big into complex mechanics. ToB, while it isn't spellcasting-grade complexity (looking at you, prepared casters), is still a good mark above "I swing my sword" or "I charge" or "I run away." Simplicity as a thing is highly undervalued in D&D, and unfortunately goes side-by-side with inefficacy at higher op-levels. But it isn't evil; some people like mechanics-lite, role play-heavy, and that is fine.

After all, it takes all kinds.

Personally, ToB has it's place, but some people don't want it, and that is fine, too. I used to be allergic to it as well, but my op-addiction got the better of me, and now I list it among the many tools at my disposal.

Simplicity isn't just undervalued in D&D; it is virtually nonexistent. Just building a core-only character requires, at a minimum, choosing race, class, ability scores, class abilities, feats, skills, and equipment. It gets even more complicated if you want to build something that can contribute against CR-appropriate enemies.

More than that, ToB is not particularly more complicated to play than regular melee characters. Particularly Warblade: you will have three additional actions available to you at 1st level and one passive boost. Choosing them at character creation and level up isn't difficult either. You can literally choose them at random and be assured that they're usable. The rules for using them aren't any more complicated than for using sneak attack, and are less complicated than for most of the basic combat maneuvers and way less complicated than for spells.

Now, if you really want to play a character that really just smashes things in the head without any particular skill, or you don't feel like learning the small number of additional rules (or, more likely, enduring the headache of trying to find them), or you get your combat jollies from creative description of attacks rather than having those attacks be mechanically different, ToB probably isn't for you. And I don't know that there are many, if any, posters who have said otherwise in this or any other thread on GitP. But if you value simplicity, it's D&D that isn't for you.

(Incidentally, this is why I decided to stop DMing D&D when I play with family; we manage to play once every couple of months and I'm the only one with any significant system mastery. Going forward we're switching to Fate, maybe CoC for a single one-shot I have an idea for. I'm emphatically not saying simplicity is bad; just that asking for it from ToB is a bit like complaining that the rampaging dragons stomped on your flowers.)

[WhamBamSam]

Since we are really doing this, I find that, in a sense, this is what is wrong with ToB. Too many choices. I have some friends that are good players and all, but they aren't that big into complex mechanics. ToB, while it isn't spellcasting-grade complexity (looking at you, prepared casters), is still a good mark above "I swing my sword" or "I charge" or "I run away." Simplicity as a thing is highly undervalued in D&D, and unfortunately goes side-by-side with inefficacy at higher op-levels. But it isn't evil; some people like mechanics-lite, role play-heavy, and that is fine.

After all, it takes all kinds.

Personally, ToB has it's place, but some people don't want it, and that is fine, too. I used to be allergic to it as well, but my op-addiction got the better of me, and now I list it among the many tools at my disposal.

I dunno. I'd say Crusaders are about as close as you can get to an idiot-proof* melee class (or indeed 3.5 class). Just put the maneuvers on 3x5 cards to handle the whole "randomly granted" thing and you're golden, as you won't be stuck with too many options at a time, what with how their recovery mechanic works. While they're simple in practice, Fighters have a lot of trap options and Barbarians require more book diving, so they're a lot harder for people who like things simple to put together in the first place. I recently started DMing for a group of new players, and Spirit Lion Wolf Totem Barbarian 2/Crusader X seemed the natural way to direct the guy who likes things simple and said he wanted to be a berserker or a tank when I asked what sort of concept he'd like to play. Granted, the other players were gravitating towards higher tier things, and having him at least outshine the Druid's animal companion was also a concern.

*Not meant to imply that people who like things simple are idiots. Maybe newbie-proof or low-complexity would be better, but they just don't have that buzzword feel to them.

[Phelix-Mu]

@Jeff the Green, WhamBamSam:

What you say is correct, and I do generally agree, but I think you are still comparing ToB to the difficulty of playing a moderately optimized mundane from core, as opposed to just comparing them to the bare bones of the class (as playtesters envisioned). Core melees have much lower floors than ToB, with a commensurate level of complexity (I think playtesting is proof enough of this).

I'm not suggesting that people should play dumb fighters or barbarians for whom the major op decision is "do I Power Attack on this enemy or not?" But I like a game that has a place for people that do play like that. And too many ToB fans basically say "chuck the core martial classes and use this stuff instead." Apples aren't oranges. I like them both, and both have their place. At least in my game.

[Jeff the Green]

@Jeff the Green, WhamBamSam:

What you say is correct, and I do generally agree, but I think you are still comparing ToB to the difficulty of playing a moderately optimized mundane from core, as opposed to just comparing them to the bare bones of the class (as playtesters envisioned). Core melees have much lower floors than ToB, with a commensurate level of complexity (I think playtesting is proof enough of this).

Not exactly. I'm saying that playing them isn't much more complex (rather than "how much do I power attack for" you ask "which of these three available attacks do I use"), and that the increase in complexity while building them is small compared to what you need to learn to build characters and play the game at all without constant direction from the DM.

[TheIronGolem]

Once upon a time there was a Player: Keith. He was one of the ''wow the Tob is so Awesome! I can never ever play a martial character again with out all the awesome awesome stuff in this book!'' I'm sure you know the type. So Keith stuck with clerics.

Until the day I made the bet: Make a fighter and play in my game. If you have fun, we will get rid of the ToB and never speak of it again. He made a fighter, and he had tons of fun.

After the game we made clamper pies (yum) out back over a fire. Keith brought out his ToB and handed it to me. I said ''I don't want this crap''......and dropped it in the fire.

STDH.txt: D&D Edition

[Phelix-Mu]

Not exactly. I'm saying that playing them isn't much more complex (rather than "how much do I power attack for" you ask "which of these three available attacks do I use"), and that the increase in complexity while building them is small compared to what you need to learn to build characters and play the game at all without constant direction from the DM.

Fair enough. As I said, I rather like ToB. But I am wise enough to know that no amount of logic at my behest will convince everyone of its suitability. So, when I DM, I let players decide what they want to play; if they want simplicity of core, fine. If they want ToB, fine. I have much bigger fish to fry as DM; from high-tiers, to broken RAW spells in core, to monk dysfunction, the people that want to toe the line and swing sword and fist are usually the least of my worries.

And when I play, I pretty much like to give whatever DM it is a break. I can challenge anyone's mastery level with core and a ten foot-pole (/braggadocio), so access to ToB or realistic combat choices are among the least of my weapons.

[Brookshw]

Why is that the case?

The long and short of it is ToB goes too far down the anime rabbit hole to achieve much of an effective parallel.

[paperarmor]

the major ones have been covered already but a pet peeve of mine is always the "that's not realistic" argument against mundanes. I mean a world where a god walking down the street or a wizard breaking every law of physics before brunch is routine but TOB gets crap for not being realistic enough. Its just odd to me that some people seem to refuse to suspend disbelief just because people can swing swords in real life.

[bjoern]

the major ones have been covered already but a pet peeve of mine is always the "that's not realistic" argument against mundanes. I mean a world where a god walking down the street or a wizard breaking every law of physics before brunch is routine but TOB gets crap for not being realistic enough. Its just odd to me that some people seem to refuse to suspend disbelief just because people can swing swords in real life.

My counter to that is
"Its magic"

I mean, it works for George Lucas
"Its The Force"

[Amphetryon]

The long and short of it is ToB goes too far down the anime rabbit hole to achieve much of an effective parallel.

Out of (morbid) curiosity, given that European martial arts also give names to their specific maneuvers, what specifically makes ToB 'anime' rather than 'European Renaissance'? Specific page numbers or quotes would be helpful.

[atemu1234]

The long and short of it is ToB goes too far down the anime rabbit hole to achieve much of an effective parallel.

I (politely, I hope) disagree. It's no more anime style than when a deadlock says kamehameha whenever he uses Eldritch Blast. Also, I probably wouldn't mind if it did go "down the anime rabbit hole". I like anime.